Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

21 Responses to Cardinal George on “Chicago Values”

A square circle has been proven to be imposible and the best analogy for gay-marriage. I appreciate the way you described the situation in Chicago about the government approving a man’s value system. Will it come to the government forcing individuals to have sex change operations to realize its value-system?

I didn’t know the Cardinal had it in him. I just wish this had been his demeanor for the last 20 years. Apparently he has concluded his flock is under attack and he will not cede moral high ground to a bunch of corrupt, secular, depraved politicians who lack any moral standing whatsoever.

Marriage is primordial and, in the happy phrase of Lord Stowell in Dalrymple v Dalrymple, it is the parent, not the child of civil society.

The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.

The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father,” which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, “.pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant.” (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].

This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including such luminaries as Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.

No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.

It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, is either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.

The “martyrdom” quote has also been attributed to Abp. Charles Chaput. I also have attempted to pin down an exact time and place where Cardinal George said this and haven’t yet been able to find one. My guess — and it’s only a guess — is that whatever its origin, it’s been attributed to Cardinal George so many times that he’s embraced it and doesn’t bother denying that he said it, since it does express his beliefs about the direction religious freedom issues seem to be going in the U.S.

Famous people or public figures often have quotes attributed to them that they never said, whether it’s Abraham Lincoln’s alleged “Ten Cannots” (“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift….”) or Chuck Colson’s “I would run over my grandmother to elect Nixon” or George Carlin’s “Hurricane Rules.”

These are fighting words. I doubt that the Rahms will take heed. Either by accident or design, the US has come to a position where the Right has to put aside all the pointless courtesies, and fight the Left tooth and nail or stand in danger of becoming strangers in their own land.

Archbishop Chaput has denied saying it Elaine. The quote has aroused my suspicion now since I can find nothing on the internet citing the statement directly from anything written or said by Cardinal George. I hope someone asks Cardinal George about the statement so we can clear this up. I have modified the post to say that he is alleged to have made this prediction.

So much talk on Gay marriage and the push to make it culturally acceptable and respectable but many seem to accept unmarried heterosexual unions. So many couples shacked up, living together and bearing children with little concern about the long time welfare of the child. Which type of union is more sinful in the eyes of God? Which lifestyle will have the greatest negative impact on our culture. What will life be like in America 50 years from now? I’m afraid to guess.

RPM, those are valid concerns, and I certainly don’t see anyone here condoning either situation. As for which is more sinful in God’s eyes, only He knows for sure – for us, it is clear both are gravely sinful (both are in the mortal sin category, but whether it earns the 4th or 5th circle of hell, I’d just rather avoid either).

As for impact on society, one strikes at the fundamental structure of marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, and the unified purposes of the marital act; the other likely involves a larger absolute number of individuals, and if not altering the fundamental structure, at a minumum undermines the important pillar of stability that marriage (ideally) provides. Neither is good.

As the British philosopher, Bertrand Russell observed, “But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex. It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.” That is why the state uses the institution of marriage to make the paternity of children clear, certain and incontestable. Were this not its primary legal function, it is difficult to see why the law should facilitate marriage in extremis. What other purpose does a death-bed marriage serve?

By the same token, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile, are irrelevant to the institution of marriage. This is different legal treatment, because their situation is not analogous.

As the legislator has no authority in the other world, whatever may be the lot of its subjects in the life to come, that is not its business, provided they are good citizens in this one.

The question is not one of morals, but of civil status: (1) mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code and (3) the sex difference is central to filiation.

The nearest Chick-filet-a is 25 miles away from me, in Racine. And since the price of gas has skyrocketed to over $4.00 a gallon in Wisconsin (a pipeline to Chicago has broken and is leaking in central Wisconsin), I don’t think it would be prudent to make a 50 mile round trip to buy a chicken sandwich:-) But I certainly will, when gas prices go down a bit.

I remember saying, at Gerard N.’s old blog *sigh*, that gay marriage was not a terribly important issue to me. Well, congrats to the gay bigots who have finally succeeded in making me an active oppoment to their agenda. Does anyone think it will stop with Chick-filet-a? No, I can easily see gays holding “kiss-ins” outside of our parishes on Sunday mornings, because Todd and Brad really, really want to have a Catholic marriage service, but those mean old “homophobes” are standing in their way. The harassment will never, ever end unless we make a stand now.

The fascinating aspect of this Donna is the rapidity of all this. Two decades ago only the lunatic fringe of the gay rights movement was even talking about gay marriage. Now the Democrats are enshrining gay marriage in their platform and denouncing as dangerous bigots anyone who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. I await with anticipation what next “right” will become a cause celebre on the Left, and an excuse for what too many Leftists seem to live for: an opportunity to engage in campaigns of organized hate against those who do not follow them in ideological lock step.

Since there are many businesses whose primary reason for existence is to spread hate, in addition to Chick-Fil-A, and since there are many executives who espouse bigoted traditional values and hate-driven biblical values, would not the actions of all good pure people – which includes, by definition, all Democrats – in avoiding these businesses be greatly facilitated if: 1. Christian businesses be required to display a Star Of Bethlehem sign in their businesses – and this could be a federal regulation whose implementation involves multiple government agencies, e.g. EPA, Health And Human Services, Department of Education, Homeland Security, and of course the Center for Disease Control; and 2. Christian executives be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have one tattooed on their forearms? And, to further the purity of Democrats and all others who are free of hate, why not have all Christians who go out in public be required to wear a Star Of Bethlehem over their hearts or have it tattooed on their foreheads? Of course a crucifix would do instead of the star.

Am I remembering correctly something like this once happened? Was it in Europe? Wasn’t there some kind of conflict about this? How did the pure people do that time?

Everyone must be tired of reading this but I must post it again, simply because it says what it says: one fake husband or one fake wife equals one fake marriage. The truth of the matter is that homosexual behavior does not pass the reality test necessary for admission into the culture. The fact that the homosexual agenda will not allow the issue to be put on the ballot is a very good indication of the level of indoctrination, physical coersion and the dirty politics involved. Whe I say dirty politics, I mean the denial of the human being’s immortal soul, unalienable civil rights, unauthorized use of the language and the strangling of FREEDOM by the perjury that is a fake marriage.

His one hundredth birthday is a good time to view the above video by Milton Friedman on the loss of freedom. Dead since 2006, Friedman’s words ring as true in 2012 as they did in 1980 when the video was taped, as to how our freedom is frittered away in ever greater reliance on an ever more powerful State.

5 Responses to Milton Friedman on the Loss of Freedom

1 When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 The name of his first-born son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beer-sheba. 3 Yet his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain; they took bribes and perverted justice. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to govern us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. 8 According to all the deeds which they have done to me, * from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. 9 Now then, hearken to their voice; only, you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” 10 So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; 12 and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle* and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the LORD will not answer you in that day.” 19 But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No! but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Hearken to their voice, and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

Excellent clip. I had not heard the term “prison state” before, but it’s apt.
I think some things have changed since this was filmed. Too many of our citizens now want an expanded government, not a smaller government. They know where we are headed, and they are quite happy to hasten our arrival. I would disagree that the fault lies with our political structures. The fault lies not in them, but in ourselves.

Tony is right, the fault lies with us. We allowed our constitution to be twisted and misinterpreted. Why did we let freedom OF religion become freedom FROM religion? When we allowed that to go unchallenged, we all bowed to the false god of secular humanism. We stood by, barely making a sound when they decided that pre meditated murder was a woman’s right. Don’t get me wrong, I believe a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, but that choice must be made BEFORE another innocent body resides in hers.

How many people voted in favor of this prison state in order to gain a shiny bobble or two? We have sold ourselves and our children into slavery, and the worst part is, many of us are too blind to see it. I cringe when I see not only my brothers and sisters, lead by our priest bow and worship the great Obama. It breaks my heart that many feel that compromising our beliefs for self gain in the welfare line is but a small price to pay. We need to get back to the literal word of our constitution, and start voting with our conscience, not with the hope of an easy way out of every situation we find ourselves in. If you are uninformed, or unable to search the truth for yourself, do not by the salesmans line, stay home and don’t vote.

Faithful readers of The American Catholic will recall the incident, recounted here, when President Obama chose to snub Lech Walesa, the near legendary former President of Poland, who, as the leader of Solidarity, along with Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan, sounded the death knell of European Communism, as being “too political”. Yesterday Walesa got “too political” again:

Two months ago, President Obama’s team refused to host former Polish President and Nobel Peace Prize Lech Walesa at the White House, claiming that he was too “political” to participate in the Presidential Medal of Freedom ceremony.

Today, Walesa — an anti-Communist freedom fighter — got political. “Gov. Romney, get your success, be successful!” Walesa said in Poland during a meeting with the former governor. “Poland and many other countries will certainly do their best for the United States to restore its leadership position. And after our conversation, I’m quite confident that you will be successful in doing that,” The Washington Post quoted him as saying.

The endorsement comes two months after Obama refused to host Walesa at the White House. The Polish government had requested that Walesa receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom that was posthumously awarded to Jan Karski, who served in the Polish Underground during World War II.

I had forgotten that the Obama White House had rejected a request from the Polish Government that the retired President of Poland receive an award on behalf of the deceased. One grasps for an explanation (other than the President or Valerie Jarret or someone disapproves of Lech Walesa’s career – must have been some disagreeable article in The Nation about him).

If I remember correctly, a couple of years ago, Walesa appeared in Chicago at a campaign/fundraising event for Adam Andrejewski, a GOP candidate for governor, who was one of half a dozen GOP primary candidates at the time. I believe Walesa said at the time that he saw a lot of himself in Adam A. (not sure I want to try spelling his last name from memory again), as someone trying to stand up against a corrupt system. Adam A. didn’t win, but I don’t think we’ve seen the last of him on the political scene.

The Romney campaign is now releasing regional ads attacking President Obama’s remarks regarding businesses. Obama gave Romney a huge gift by letting his mask drop briefly and revealing his true contempt for the private sector, and the Romney campaign is taking full advantage of it. The unguarded moments of a candidate, when he gives voice to his true feelings, can make or break him. I’d place these remarks of Obama in the break category.

One Response to These Hands: Ohio

Catholics, you put this pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-same sex marriage, pro-coveting, pro-class warfare liar in the White House who has insulted our closest allies and is endangering their safety and ours, while at the same time is destroying jobs and forcing us to pay much more for food and twice as much for gasoline while our property values go down. You did this to us. You got to change it. If you believe in God and what you say in Mass on Sundays in the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer standing before Jesus in the Holy Eucharist – you got to correct the mistake you made. Our future is in your hands. Stop believing in a liar. You made a mistake; confess it, repent, and change it – or you then become the liar in what you profess to believe and pray for in Mass on Sundays. God doesn’t create life to be aborted. God’s will is not being done on earth with this Administration, especially attacking the Church and destroying our First Amendment Rights. For God’s sake and ours as well as our children’s and grandchildren’s – change it.

You wanted to do whatever you wanted to do with your body, and then claim you had a right to kill your own children when you conceived them because it was just so unfair for anyone to expect you to let a child ever use you against your will. You said you needed your choices, and you needed them without judgement or criticism. You tossed God’s law aside and said that your rights come from man’s law, and that worked for you as long as you thought you were getting your way. Motherhood be damned.

When the New York City abortion rate was reported (God only knows what it really is) to be 41%, meaning that nearly 2 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion, you didn’t even wince. You were proud those women were exercising their so-called right to choose even when the city health officials made condescending excuses that the high rate was due to the “ignorance” and “ambivalence” of women who hadn’t been indoctrinated in the methods of birth control, or who were too stupid and poor to chose stable relationships.

Even decades ago when your feminist and pro-choice philosophies collided over sex-selective abortion right in your own city, you quieted the voice in your head that was screaming, “No. STOP! You should not,” because you feared that making moral judgments would take away the high and mighty right for you to profit from the ambivalent under the guise of caring about women. In a mind-seering display of mental gymnastics you sought to rephrase the question by separating the chooser from the choice, so that you could justify killing girls in the womb even as you condemned misogyny.

Let me tell you something: Truth does not condescend the human person, male or female of any age, nor does it contradict itself. That should have been warning enough, but you were too blinded by the tenets of the reproductive rights movement and the power you thought it gave you.

And now, the man you trusted to guard your pseudo-freedom in New York City has decided to dictate to new mothers how they will feed their own babies. Starting September 3, Mayor Bloomberg will enforce what is being called “the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation” which requires formula to be locked up and rationed out only if medical professionals can submit a medical reason for needing it. If the mother gets the formula from the state, she also gets a lecture. Why? It seems the people in power don’t really think women can make good choices for themselves or their children, especially the women who give birth.

Sure some of you will support this anti-choice program and justify it based on some feigned concern for the health of newborn babies. Some of you will speak out against it because you see it for the over-imposition of government into private lives that it is. However, I predict that not a single one of you will see the monumental contradiction before you once again.

Like happy and willing slaves, you conceded all your rights to the decisions of the people in power, and now they are dictating that those in charge do what you’ve been fighting against your whole lives – force a woman to let her child use her body. You may justify it as some caring act on the part of the government, but that’s nonsense. Governments don’t care for people; people care for people, and you’ve been advocating for generations that the most extreme bond between the have’s and the have not’s – the bond between mothers and their children – is meaningless unless the individual mother chooses to care for the greedy little thing.

Some people are calling your Mayor Bloomberg a nanny for turning NYC into a nanny-state, but at least nannies care for individual children. I hate to break it to you, Pro-Choice NYer, but you aren’t a child and Mayor Bloomberg and his officials don’t care for you (or the children you decide are worthy of life) individually. This isn’t about caring; it’s about control. It’s Marxism.

This is social materialism, utilitarian ideology about the worth of a human person in the big chemical equation of society. Feeding people taxes the system, just as pregnancy taxes a woman’s body. If it were about caring for the babies, there wouldn’t also exist a law that allowed late-term abortion past the point of viability. There wouldn’t be a law allowing any unborn child to be killed. The same child the state says must be breastfed for it’s health could have been killed the trimester, the month, the week, the day, and the minute before birth with impunity. Wake up! The same people are also busy telling you what you can and cannot eat or drink. They don’t really think you can be trusted to chose wisely for yourself; they see you as objects to be managed.

As pro-life people have said for as long as they’ve needed to use that title, if you promote that one group of humans can treat another dependent group like individual blobs of mindless tissue, don’t be surprised if the day comes when it’s your turn to be grouped as such too. You got what you asked for. Welcome to the world of your choices.

If you want to fix it, start by reaffirming unconditional love between mother and child, and by defending the primary and natural rights of the family.

Considering the nagging, false information and borderline bulling I’ve experienced at both hospitals that I gave birth at– I do and did breastfeed willingly, and the ladies were trying to do the right thing, and it didn’t cause actual harm so I didn’t speak up at that point– this is especially bothersome.

God brings good out of evil. Next Bloomberg will be outlawing contraceptive pills because the hormones are polluting our drinking water and men’s breast are getting to big to fit in their t -shirts.
Breastfeeding babies is conducive to spiritual maturity. It is the milk of human kindness made physical nourishment. Babies need to be fondled and caressed at the breast and upon the lap.

The underlying philosophy is very old. As Rousseau says, ““Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

Don’t tell me, let me guess: the “official” rationale behind this is that breastfed babies are healthier and therefore less of a burden on the healthcare system. Which is the same rationale behind anti-obesity and anti-smoking campaigns and other relentless campaigns to stamp out every bad health habit (except those involving sex, of course). What you do with your own body becomes everybody’s business when “everybody” is paying for your healthcare.

Elaine Krewer makes a valid point, but I believe this logic goes back much further, to the French Revolution and the levée en masse.

If, as Holmes J mordantly observed, “the state has the right to drag the citizen from his home and occupation, put him into uniform and march him into battle, with bayonets at his back,” as well as using “directed labour” in essential industries on the significantly named “home front,” then a concern for the nation’s health becomes a matter of strategic and political significance.

I believe the first hospital built by the US government was for merchant seamen; precisely the class that could be impressed into the navy, in the event of war.

Stacey Trasancos is right enough; disinterested philanthropy is seldom the motive of government action.

“His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

We give citizenship to our country, not the citizens. Citizenship is endowed by the state at birth, and citizenship is the tribute that the sovereign person returns to the state. No person can be forced to be free. FREEDOM is from God and is returned to God though the free will of the person. God owns the person. The general will of the people, the will of the goverment, will not go to hell for any citizen. We have to be responsible for our own choices, and in doing so, a person exercises his free will endowed by our Creator. Rousseau did not beleieve in our Creator, so, Rousseau invented this silliness.

God is LOVE. Man must love or be lost to God. No human being comes into existence without the creation of his soul by our Creator.
The atheist demands proof of the existence of God. God is the Supreme Sovereign Being. God is EXISTENCE. God is BEING. God is beauty. Beauty does not need a reason to exist.
So, the atheist who falls in love has God.

“If, as Holmes J mordantly observed, “the state has the right to drag the citizen from his home and occupation, put him into uniform and march him into battle, with bayonets at his back,” as well as using “directed labour” in essential industries on the significantly named “home front,” then a concern for the nation’s health becomes a matter of strategic and political significance.”

Only under martial law and it is the Congess who declares war for the people. It is the people who choose to defend themselves, when, where and how.

Let us remind the government that we, the people, are their employers and they are our employees. The breastmilk of the mother must not be tainted by tyranny. The nourishment of the infant must be real human milk. Breastfeeding an infant must be voluntary, or it will be bitter.

“Rousseau did not beleieve in our Creator, so, Rousseau invented this silliness.”

Why Mary de Voe imagines Rousseau was an atheist, I do not know – “There remains therefore the religion of man or Christianity — not the Christianity of to-day, but that of the Gospel, which is entirely different. By means of this holy, sublime, and real religion all men, being children of one God, recognise one another as brothers, and the society that unites them is not dissolved even at death.” [Du Contrat Social IV:8]

He was for banishing those who did not believe in “the existence of a mighty, intelligent and beneficent Divinity, possessed of foresight and providence, the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and the laws” [ibid]

His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.” WHO gives each citizen to his country and by what right is another person given to anyone else? Rousseau my have believed in God but he did not apply his belief to his citizenship. Now, this is not intended to be nasty cause it sounds nasty, but how did Rousseau avoid addressing his own citizenship?

Very well written, Stacy. And timely, too, in this election year.
I wonder if the liberals, especially those on the right, realise that if the Marxists or their sympathisers gain control they (the libs) will be crushed.

It seems to me that the abortion genocide is being encouraged by a bunch of lesbians who envy men and who have contempt or desire for girly women. I had an opportunity to visit an abortion clinic to repair a roof. There were gay looking women in the clinic’s waiting room that seemed to be just hanging out, the way guys hang out at bars looking for women. Some of them had shirts that put men down as slimy, dirty, etc. It was an eye opening experience for me. I did not know it was an abortion clinic since I was working for the landlord. I never went back. Has this observation ever been documented before? I would like to know if it was just this clinic or are there others. I have seen some the women that seem to be pushing the abortion issue and maybe its me but they seem more butch. Is it because these women seem to gravitate toward the women issues in general?nCould someone tell me? From a social science standpoint, how does a lesbian population feel about pregnant women and abortions?

“Past the point of viability?” What the hell does that mean coming from one who presents herself as a Catholic pro-lifer? The quote above seems gratuitous, jarring. I would’ve expected it from the under-informed twenty and thirty-somethings that this piece was hopefully aimed at. Also, as an aside, please don’t type so fast that you’re oblivious to spelling. Too much of it these days on the internet. But, having said all that, your post is sharp and well-done, and i obviously comcur with the points made here. GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE

So predictable. More encroachment form the biggest corporate body of them all – the Government. This dole & control thing is getting really intolerable. Didn’t the UK in the 1940s attempt to mandate career paths for their citizens? USSR redux? That British mandate was promptly rebuffed, thank God. Don’t be surprised if such government maneuvering someday gets tried here. But, why not? In the spirit of the general welfare and domestic tranquility, it’s for their our own good? Less responsiblity = less freedom.

Perhaps you are thinking of “Directed Labour,” introduced in the UK under DORA (The Defence of the Realm Act) 1940, whereby workers could be, in effect, conscripted into “essential industries,” or, more often in practice, prevented from leaving them. It remained in place during post-war reconstruction, but was finally repealed in 1951.

What rendered it largely ineffective is that most “essential industries” had pre-entry closed shop agreements with the Trade Unions, meaning that no one could be hired, who was not already a member of the union. The attempt to introduce “Bevin Boys” into the Lanarkshire coal-fields caused a widespread strike, with the railwaymen “blacking” (refusing to handle) coal from the affected pits. It was only after the attack on the “workers’ fatherland” in July 1941 that the unions gave up their objections for “the duration.”

I am a sidewalk counselor at an abortion clinic in New Jersey. We are urban, and have the same population demographics as New York City. Since I am a man, I spend more time talking to the men. Just this past week, Greg (name changed) and his girlfriend were sent to the clinic by the hospital. She had miscarried, and the doctors sent her to the clinic to have the already dead fetus removed. Yeah, I can see the medical logic in that; the same abortionist that kills a child in the womb and evacuates the dead child is medically skilled to perform this procedure. But what a hell hole to send a woman who has miscarried! God help us; what emotional ignorance on the part of the medical professionals that sent this couple to a ghetto of infanticide.

Greg had to go outside while she was in the procedure. He just could not stand being in there. What made it nauseating was the laughing and humor of the “repeaters”. One young woman was having her fifth abortion. Here, his girlfriend told Greg that she felt worthless about not being physically able to sustain the life, and now this couple was thrown in with the hardcore. The poor guy was numb at first, but when he started talking the pain and the sorrow came out. He and his girlfriend will be OK. They have been together seven years, and now plan to marry and start a family within a context of a Catholic family. We gave him Rachel’s Vineyard literature, and assured him that God loves them both, and that great people, like Dorothy Day, have been in worse and turned it around.

Msgr. Reilly of “Helpers of God’s Precious Infants” says that for those hardcore, before the woman physically aborts her child, she spiritually aborts it. Often we are not effective to change their choice in the 30-45 seconds we have to talk to them before they enter the clinic. All we can do is try to prevent the next one. I have to say, the 41% abortion rate is chilling. From my own observations, I have to believe that many of these are the 4-5 abortion repeaters that we see. Not every woman who walks into a clinic is sobered by the choice. Worse, many walk out without any personal resolution to change habits or sexual activity.

Markrite, I think her comment, “there wouldn’t also exist a law that allowed late-term abortion past the point of viability” was meant to make very clear the fact that the gov’t doesn’t really care about children, by allowing EVEN those that could live survive outside the womb (were they to be born at that point) to be aborted.

I agree with her making that point, if for no other reason than it shows that ‘if you allow X, then Y and Z must also be allowed’. There are so many Catholic women that, unfortunately, believe in the woman’s right to choose; if they buy into the belief that a ‘fetus’ is not really a baby, then it is difficult to make them understand the Pro-Life position. However, if you can get them to understand that their belief also makes ‘Y and Z’ acceptable, then It may cause them to rethink their position.

I was one of those who, upon seeing that people were appalled that female babies were specificaly being aborted, immediately made the connection – if you believe that abortion AT ANY STAGE OF LIFE should be legal, you have NO right to have any say in who or what type of baby is aborted. Abortions based on sex, mental abnormalities and even physical characteristics all are fair game.

It needs to be made very clear that to believe in abortion means allowing all these other things.

I read a paper recently, I believe th doctors were out of Austria, saying that post birth killing should be legal, if there was some abnormality. They stated correctly that if a country allowed abortion, the point at which it was allowed (up to 4, 5, or 6 months) was merely a line in the sand. They were correct. If we allow taking a life for any reason, then taking a life for any reason must follow.

Right now we are having this discussion about the unborn. How much longer before the discussion will be about the elderly?

Joash M. wrote, “It seems to me that the abortion genocide is being encouraged by a bunch of lesbians who envy men and who have contempt or desire for girly women.”

Oh, it’s not just contempt. It’s lust.

“24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. ” Romans 1:24-27

While there are some heroic homosexuals and lesbians who try to remain chaste and celibate, living lives in conformance to St. Paul’s admonition that we offer up our bodies as living sacrifices, these militant homosexuals and lesbians are godless, reprobate perverts who need to be relegated back into the closet from whence they came.

Paul: “While there are some heroic homosexuals and lesbians who try to remain chaste and celibate, living lives in conformance to St. Paul’s admonition that we offer up our bodies as living sacrifices, these militant homosexuals and lesbians are godless, reprobate perverts who need to be relegated back into the closet from whence they came.”

There are many, many heroic homosexuals and lesbians who remain chaste and celibate and there are many, many heterosexuals who remain chaste and celibate starting with our leader, Jesus Christ. The evil side likes to pretend that there are few and that they are weird or abnormal, but I tell you there are multitudes, the norm and the blessed. If I do not get to heaven, and the good Lord leaves me on earth, I hope it is with a community of chaste and celibates, for such is the joy of innocence, to have recapitulated our original innocence.

Yes, Mary De Voe, as usual you are 100% correct. I wish I could write like you, but often I get too darn mad and fly off the handle. I think it was St. Peter – or maybe St. Paul or both – who said that such anger is not of God. I got a lot of work to do on myself.

I think it could be that New York State is pulling these measures as an economic response to the extra burden it will have to carry in medicare. In other words, it is not ideology driving this, but state economic survival in the face of the HHS.

Well said, Stacy. The call to “wake up!” runs an unbroken line from Creation, through the prophets, and has culminated in Jesus’ continuing call to awaken to the Kingdom of God when and where we are. You have beautifully articulated this call in your piece; I hear Jesus’ words echoing in yours. Though many of us still sleep, let us pray that we awaken, that we hear and respond to God’s call upon our lives, and that more of us will humbly yet firmly choose to speak the wake-up call of God into the lives of those around us.

Thank goodness the federal government has made it possible for all of those capitalists entrepreneurs to succeed.

For example, consider William E. Newland who founded Hercules Industries (HI) in 1962 as a family owned and operated heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning business in Colorado.

Five decades later, William, Paul, and James Newland, along with their sister, Christine Ketterhagen, own HI which boasts 265 employees.

More important than all of that success—that’s due, as President Obama reecently reminded the nation, to the federal government’s largess—CNSNews.com reports that the Newlands are Roman Catholic. Better yet, HI offers its employees a self-insurance plan, providing generous healthcare coverage that’s consistent with Church moral teaching. That is, the plan doesn’t cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, or abortifacients.

And, because of that, HI now finds itself in the crosshairs of legal jeopardy…all due to the federal government.

HI must comply by August 1, 2012, with the mandate issued by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in February 2012 which requires businesses having more than 50 employees to provide health insurance to their employees—including free sterilizations, artificial contraceptives, and abortafacients—or pay a penalty.

With 265 employees, HI will have to pay the federal government $26.5k/day if HI doesn’t comply with the Sebelius mandate and provided insurance to its employees anyway. The annual cost to HI will be ~$9.7M.

Much to their credit, the Newlands aren’t taking this matter sitting down and have decided not to comply. Instead, they’ve filed a lawsuit, Newlands v. Sebelius et al., alleging that they can’t comply with the mandate without violating their religious faith. The lawsuit states:

The Newlands sincerely believe that the Catholic faith does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Hercules Industries.

The Newlands believe that according to the Catholic faith, their operation of Hercules Industries must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that the adherence of their business practice according to such Catholic ethics and religious and moral teachings is a genuine calling from God, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that their Catholic faith requires them to integrate the gifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical social principles of Catholic teaching into their life and work.

The Catholic Church teaches that abortafacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils. As a matter of religious faith the Newlands believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives including in their business practice.

Don’t think for one moment that the Obama administration is going to have any of that!

The Justice Department responded by making a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The filing states:

Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise. Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is “an HVAC manufacturer.”

The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church. Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.

By definition, a secular employer does not engage in any “exercise of religion.”

Hercules Industries has “made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business.” Any burden is therefore caused by the company’s choice to enter into a commercial activity.

Of course, skeptics and cynics will see in the Newlands’ fidelity to Church teaching a bunch of greedy capitalists responding to a profit motive. The Newlands’ simply want to keep their healthcare expenses down in order to increase HI’s profit.

Others are defending the Newlands and HI on the grounds of freedom of religious expression and speech, arguing that the Obama administration is forcing the Newlands to chose between exercising freedom of religion and speech or shuttering HI.

[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.

The Motley Monk wants to point instead to the Newlands’ fidelity to Church teaching. These are the Catholics who take seriously the challenge that the Second Vatican Council issued to the laity. They are to be a “leaven at work in the world.”

Today, the forces of this world—embodied in the Sebelieus mandate (the demonic irony being that Ms. Sebelius is Catholic)—are presenting the Newlands a “choice” that’s actually “no choice” at all:

They can shut down HI and add 265 new individuals to the unemployment lines.

They can sell HI and let the buyers do what they want.

They can stop providing health insurance through HI, but HI employees will only be able to purchase healthcare insurance that covers artificial contraception, sterilizations, and abortafacients. (The premiums then help pay for those “services” and HI would be required to pay a penalty to the government of ~$2k/year/employee that HI did not insure.)

They can ignore the Sebelius mandate and continue to provide HI employees healthcare insurance that doesn’t provide “free” coverage for artificial birth control, sterilizations, and abortafacients. (That’s when the federal government will use those 50k new IRS agents to come in and require HI to pay those confiscatory penalties.)

“Witness”—being a leaven at work in the world or, in a previous era, “martyrdom”—never presents a good option.

In this era, it requires Catholics—following the lead of the Newlands as they operate HI—to stand up for the moral teachings of their faith. In this way, they demonstrate their love of God and neighbor as a leaven at work in the world.

5 Responses to Catholic capitalists opposing Obamacare: A “leaven at work in the world”…

The devil has no soul. Man has a body and a soul, yet the Affordable Healthcare Act treats citizens as soulless, a “no people” without conscience, without the personhood to constitute government. The government becomes disenfranchised as the citizens become disenfranchised. It is a lie for the government to deny the soul of man. It is false witness to align the human being within the confines of the devil.

All people with human body and soul, human beings, in citizenship are being disenfranchised because they refuse to surrender their souls to the soulless Affordable Healthcare Mandate. The imposition of Satanism is contrary to the First Amendment. Government is constituted to acknowledge its constituents body and soul.

These Catholic entrepreneurs have established a business that offers a valuable service and provides work for their many employees. It pays taxes and benefits the economy. Now the government has imposed a new regulation that violates the conscience of the owners. It requires them to offer so called ‘health services’ that, up to the 1930’s, all Christian denominations viewed as immoral and that the Catholic church has always and openly viewed as immoral. Perhaps the government can give Americans the legal ‘right’ to contracept and to abort their own children. But when it forces Catholic individuals and companies to be complicit in these acts which they see as immoral how can this be viewed as something other than anti-Catholic discrimination?

I have long thought it axiomatic that in our contemporary society the most smugly intolerant individuals tend to be on the political left. Ross Douthat has apparently noticed that also, and in his most recent column lays out what that means for religious freedom:

To the extent that the H.H.S. mandate, the Cologne ruling and the Chick-fil-A controversy reflect a common logic rather than a shared confusion, then, it’s a logic that regards Western monotheism’s ideas about human sexuality — all that chastity, monogamy, male-female business — as similarly incompatible with basic modern freedoms.

Like a belief that the gods want human sacrifice, these ideas are permissible if held in private. But they cannot be exercised in ways that might deny, say, employer-provided sterilizations to people who really don’t want kids. Nor can they be exercised to deny one’s offspring the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision advocates claim the procedure makes impossible. They certainly cannot be exercised in ways that might make anyone uncomfortable with his or her own sexual choices or identity.

It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.

It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.

If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.

5 Responses to Religious Freedom and the Forces of Tolerance

I am surprised that the NY Times moderated allow people supporting Mr. Douthat to voice their opinions. But of the comment reproductions provided above, I did not see a clear cut example of that. Ido agree with one commenter above who maintained that the liberal left does understand religious freedom and all too well, for which reason they seek to marginalize or eliminated it.

Some people define a fake wife and a phoney husband as husband and wife. What could be wrong with that? Some people define tax money as “government money”. Government in and of itself cannot own anything. All belongs to the people in trust for all generations, our constitutional posterity. For the HHS mandate to respect all citizens, it must provide Catholic patients with Catholic hospitals with Catholic doctors, a chapel, a chaplain and freedom to come and go unmolested. Imposing confiscatory fines is molestation of a finacial nature intended to suppress and destroy a belief in the persons’ soul, establishment of Satanism, the belief that the person has no soul, a lie.

“From Socrates to Galileo to Darwin (himself a believer), the rational have been persecuted for using their brains, but they have slowly managed to open our minds. Please don’t try to drag us back, and please do take your own advice and try some intellectual honesty.” Poor Socrates was an accomplice to his own murder by imbibing the hemlock, because he said he would. Illegal crimes cannot be legalized by fiat, or by saying its legal, when it is not legal. Poor Galileo tried to preach science as religion. Science is science and religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. To deny God and the gift of Faith from God is intellectually dishonest and totalitarian, because it is a lie. Ahah, Darwin refused to believe in the human being as composed of body and human soul, endowed with unalienble rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Even if these founding principles were wrong, these are still our founding principles. Accept them or go find another country to your liking. BTW Russia refused entrance to Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the American atheist. A land of sovereign persons is infinitely desirable to a land of an abominable lie.

“As for the implication that “repressive puritanism” and “family breakdown” are the only two choices, please, give us a break. Where is family breakdown most rampant in the US? Yes, you got it: the 22 most religiously conservative states. Same for teen pregnancy, welfare use, illiteracy, and drug abuse. Maybe, as a believer, you need to look after your own house before coming after the rest of us.”
Our house is in disarray because our government has redefined virginty as non-existent, innocence as non-existent and the human being, composed of human body and rational, immortal soul (you know, the rational soul with which a human being reasons) as non-existent. Our government has redefined pornography, a lie about human sexuality as free speech, the age of informed sexual consent at twelve years of age, without so much as putting the issue on the ballot for the voice of the people to be heard and the will of the people to be respected. But the government wants us to pay for all this with our taxes. Taxation without representation. Put it on the ballot for heaven’s sake. It is called FREEDOM.

Father Wilson Miscamble, not content to stir the pot by defending Truman in regard to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the above video attacks the myth that there is a shortage of able Catholic scholars to fill academic positions at Notre Dame and other Catholic colleges and universities. This speech I assume was given as a response to this resolution of the Notre Dame faculty senate on April 9, 2012: The University should not compromise its academic aspirations in its efforts to maintain its Catholic identity.

The Sycamore Trust, a group seeking to preserve the Catholic identity of Notre Dame, and which sponsored the speech of Father Miscamble, has published this charming rant from an unnamed Notre Dame professor in response to criticisms that a Notre Dame department has listed pro-abort organizations as potential employers of Notre Dame interns:

“As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.'” 1st Peter 1:14-16

It is time to throw the abortion-supporters and sodomy-sympathizers out.

That reasoning just leaves me speechless. Oh man.
Like the mandate report from Newman, this post just brings up so many frustrating aspects of dealing with well-educated adults who are yet so juvenile.
So many yeah buts what if s and so much dissembling. A university teaches everything? What do we mean by everything? The point is the university, like this government, needs to be oriented to the Good, and not afraid to define it. We don’t have to facilitate every cracked pot half baked idea.
We are grown up enough to know there is Good and that we can work together toward it, that there are natural hierarchies in ideas and in their value. Why do so many professors seem to have arrested development at that 18 – 22 stage. Very bright very erudite stuck on dancing with doubt and yeah-but what-if. Have the courage to publicly recognize that there are some identifiable things, not smooshy ideas, but identifiable things that have grown from the Good of Christianity and that they are worth learning about and passing on to another generation.

Are those comments for real? What raving, and arrogant, lunatic made those comments, yet wants to work at a Catholic university? Yikes! Speaking as a top tier research scientist, I would have loved to work at ND. Great research. All to be enjoyed surrounded by my amazing Catholic faith. I’d love it. And yes, the myth that we don’t have enough qualified people is spot on.

Our tax money belongs to us. Obama took our tax money and gave it to his buddies. Now, that our economy is a disaster, Obama blames it on us. Who can argue with Obama’s modus operandi. Obama has perfected the swindle. So contempt, corruption and conceit will get us a new king, a new constitution and a new currency.

OK, that ad was pretty good. But there should be some kind of “we can do better” at the end. During booms, everyone forgets what recessions are like, and during downturns, everyone thinks that this is the new normal. Romney doesn’t need to give his policy prescriptions, yet, but he needs to be reminding people of their expectations of success. Otherwise it just seems like naysaying.

I swear, people would be surprised by the seasons if it weren’t for the calendar. What, summer again this year? How did that happen? Housing prices are always going to go up 10% every year, oh, wait, the stock market just crashed and now it’ll never go back over 10000 again, and now we just have to live with the fact that capitalism means high unemployment. The president gets away with blaming ATM’s for structural job losses, as if the first ATM was installed in September 2009. It just drives me crazy.

OK, that was a rant, but you know what I mean. People need to be reminded to be optimistic.

Establishment media sources tell us that polling reveals 54% of those who self-identify as Catholics voted for that candidate with the I-Covet-My-Neighbor’s-Goods agenda in 2008. And then there was his pro-abortion agenda.

“Establishment media sources tell us that polling reveals 54% of those who self-identify as Catholics voted for that candidate with the I-Covet-My-Neighbor’s-Goods agenda in 2008. And then there was his pro-abortion agenda.

What happened?”

They trusted Obama. They thought that Obama would be giving us HOPE, instead of taking our HOPE.

Establishment media sources tell us that polling reveals 54% of those who self-identify as Catholics voted for that candidate with the I-Covet-My-Neighbor’s-Goods agenda in 2008. And then there was his pro-abortion agenda.

What happened?

Three-quarters of that 54% do not go to Mass and north of 40% of the remainder have a curious set of priorities or are resistant to the notion that one idea is connected to another idea.

Did you happen to see any humility, integrity or honesty on Obama’s face?

Have you ever seen any of those things on his face? To be fair, I don’t see them that much in Romney’s either. But even as “silver spoon” as Romney is, he does not seem to portray the utter arrogance that the “O” does. Cluelessness, yes on occasion, but not the sheer arrogance.

Well this is interesting. In the video above meet “Jenni” who is alarmed that Mitt Romney might take away her precious right to slay her offspring. This of course goes along with the War on Women meme pushed by Obama, and also the condescending view of women taken by Team Obama, portraying women as helpless waifs, think “Julia”, unless Big Daddy Government takes them by the hand and leads them through life.

6 Responses to Can You Smell the Panic?

I guess the DNC pros know what they are doing, but I really wonder whether ads like this don’t actually help Romney in battleground states. These states not only include a lot of socially conservative independents and Dems, they also include some pro-lifers who are flirting with staying at home (or voting third party) because they are not convinced that Romney is really pro-life.

The Democratic Party lets you punsh the innocent child for the sins and the crimes of the father in rape and incest. The Democratic Party demands that we punish the innocent victim of incest and rape for the sins and crimes of the father. Vote democratic and Justice will have as much chance to flourish as a snowball in hell. If a man can get away with rape and incest by aborting the real evidence, and an unborn child with his DNA is real evidence, as every person is real evidence of love between a mother and a father, and the unborn, newly begotten in moral and legal innocence, is the standard of Justice in America and in the world, Justice is no more, for the unborn, for their mothers and for the criminals. There can be no FREEDOM without JUSTICE. There can be no JUSTICE without FREEDOM.

You might have a point Mike. Obama is certainly more pro-abortion than Romney is pro-life, so his supporters should be more energized by the abortion issue. But then I’ve been saying for many years that pro-life voters who vote Republican will be disappointed.

I was on the Verizon site to check my webmail but before I could login, a video started playing with the usual no man (in this case Romney) can tell me what to do with my body, especially in the case of rape or incest, pro abortion message. It was almost hysterical. I couldn’t close the offensive ad until until the third try.
I doubt that the slow response was my computer.

Something for the weekend. Chariots of Fire. I have never had much interest in sport, and I doubt if I will be watching much of the Olympics. However I did greatly enjoy the 1981 film Chariots of Fire, which told the stories of two of the British runners in the 1924 Olympics, Harold Abrahams and Eric Liddell. If the film had focused solely on their prowess as athletes, I doubt if I would have bothered watching it. Instead, the film is primarily about religion. Abrahams, a Jew, looks upon his running as part of his life long battle to show his fellow countrymen that he was just as British as they were. Liddell, the son of Scottish Evangelical missionaries in China, has spent most of his life in China. He is a pure Scot, but his religion, which is his core, sets him apart from his society, as this reading from Isaiah in the film, dramatically demonstrates:

4 Responses to Chariots of Fire

Televised Olympics were, used to be, and are no longer an opportunity to spend time in some part of the world with its culture, weather conditions, gathered peoples, and sportsmen vying for excellence at something. Clean, wholesome, and fair and almost humble sport.

For example, my fondest memory is of the winter games when Franz Klammer won the downhill ski race on a trail of mostly ice during the years in the 80’s when snow was scarce (and astroturf was new) and competence and strength counted more than any – oh, but this or but that other thing. Salt Lake City year was my last mostly watchable.

Now, it seems to be a hyped ‘celebrity behavior’ gadget, issue, and glitz blitz of hyperactive blinding flashes and fast talk. Unintelligible presentation for this weak and incompetent former viewer.

Pity the children who have this circus atmosphere presented for inspiration and example of excellence and competence.

The speaker in the ‘July, Springfield, and Lincoln’ video, in my opinion, has the sense for presentation and speaking.

I loved Abrahams character in this (one of favorite movies). He couldn’t figure out what made Liddell motivation so strong. He senced it but the end scene when celibrations should be going on the camera was panning out from his face with him in deep thought. I believe in real life Abraham converted to be a Catholic and that is why in the beginning of the movie the funeral was in a Catholic Church…

I actually think the coverage has gotten much better in the last couple of Olympics. The excessive amount of different channels that NBC is using means that they are really focused on the sports, especially when on the channels other than NBC proper. So as long as you are not interested in the key sports, you can just watch them. Of course the most interesting sports from my point of view are on MSNBC which means putting up with their horrible, sanctimonious commercials.

That’s “fast” like “quick,” not “fast” like, well, “fasting.” I do go meatless, but that’s entirely beside the point. The idea is things to make when the weak week is ending and I’m longing for a stiff drink ready for the weekend. Maybe I’ll make a tradition of it, we’ll see.

Expect it to be thrifty, too, because I’m cheap like that.

Safeway has some lovely “party sized” dinners that I got because… well, they were about 25% off, and I’m lazy sleep deprived, and I love both lasagnas (five cheese and meat, respectively) and orange chicken. Grabbed the cannelloni because it sounded like something to try.

Thus far:

$7 for five to ten servings. Usually ten bucks plus tax. Easily two evening’s dinner for us with the toddlers, plus a generous packed lunch.

Cooking time is a bit on the low side—by which I mean you’ll want to set it for the low timer, check it, and then let it go to the high suggested cooking time.

The cannelloni was… er… well, TrueBlue says it didn’t taste right. It tasted like salsa made of green peppers mixed with basic pasta and a good white cheese sauce to me. Kept its form very well.

The cheese lasagna is WONDERFUL. How good is it? My husband willingly ate it when I wasn’t cooking only non-carne meals. This is the guy that complains there’s not enough meat in his steak and potatoes….

The meat lasagna is good; not great, but better than I could make, and probably less expensive. The meat seems to be rather spicy sausage, but not bad at all. (Note, this is not to be interpreted as “spicy” or “hot” by the measure of most folks; more along the lines of mild-to-medium salsa. Yes, I’m a wimp.)

Haven’t tried the Orange Chicken yet, we’ll see.

(update: fixed the name of the not-very-good baked dish; I blame that line from the Godfather movies)

10 Responses to Fast Friday

Down here, fish ‘n’ chips is still the standard Friday fare, even after – what – 40 years?
Tastes better after the downing of a couple of pints of good ale, and washed down with a liberal glass of shiraz or cab-sav red wine. 🙂

We like to use the frozen lasagnas on Sundays. That way there’s less work involved in meal prep on the Lord’s Day. There are some good ones out there. Stouffer’s is pretty good. So is Marie Callender’s. Walmart has its own brand which is half a notch down from the other two, but they also offer a “Mexican Style” lasagna that isn’t bad at all. With eight kids, though, the family size isn’t really enough. It says 12 servings, but they don’t take teenagers into account. Heck, our 12 year old has shot up three inches in three months. Try feeding that hungry beast!

Good plan, Foxfier.
~$65 and two days spent a few months ago to prepare meat and cheese lasagne in a deep pan. The best part was having portions on hold in the freezer for those fast meals.
I won’t start on how good Fish and Chips are the object of an endless search since a little place nearby closed.
For economy, you could stretch nice Yellowfin Tuna into a cold salad plate by mixing it with brown rice and celery, radish, and chives, or something and mayonnaise. But that’s cooking rice, chopping, refrigerating and not fast unless it’s ready.
Can’t even imagine a cannoli tasting of salsa … isn’t that a dessert?

PM- not a clue what it was supposed to be like; for all I know, I could be spelling it wrong. It was pasta tubes stuffed with chicken, simi-liquid cheese and not-hot-pepper salsa, covered in more cheese and tomato sauce.

And I’ve got rice on the brain for future Fast Fridays… I base “fast” on how much time I have to actually spend on it, rather than cooking time!

2. Pastry tubes stuffed with ricotta cheese are cannoli. Check out a good Bakery with a refrigerated case. Treats.

3. Rice & tuna time – an hour to the fridge and ready for table.
– $2/can, use two for your family of four. Cook a cup of rice per can as gauge. + or – to taste.
– A pan to cook rice with a splash of oil in the water.
– A screen colander to cold water rinse the starch out of the cooked rice.
– A casserole dish to mix and serve.
– While the rice is cooking, you can chop vegs., shred tuna with fork, and put in the serving bowl ready to mix with cooled rice and mayonnaise, and clean up.
– Serve on lettuce, chips on side. Cannoli for dessert!

Definitely not tamales– I just compare it to salsa because that’s the only thing similar, not because it was actually salsa. Ever made salsa? Imagine doing that, but no tomatoes, no hot peppers, just green peppers. That’s what it tasted like….

*spends longer looking online than she spent writing the post*
Cannelloni. I dropped several letters in my memory.

Good – mystery solved.
Thanks for unclogging my mind – spent time in the indices of the few cookbooks around here. So many pasta and pastry shapes and possibilities. Cannelloni I don’t know, but cannoli I love. You were just talking in code or shorthand – pretty close – starts with can, ends with i. That’s what happens when the years or things to do pile upon you.

I constantly scandalize my husband by talking about “bowties” or “the falafel things” (farfalle), “macaroni noodles,” calling anything you can make a spaghetti dish out of “spaghetti” (even the flat noodles that are about a quarter inch wide), “those twisty ones” (rotini) and “the big macaroni ones.” (Penne.)

I’m just horrible at names.

Thanks for the recipe– we have one sort of like that, but I take all the parts, mix them with a can of “cream of” soup while the rice is hot, add a bunch of cheese-chunks, put in a pan, cover with more cheese, cheese and bake until nicely browned. The girls don’t seem to like eating things that are supposed to be served cold, and I’m giggling at the idea of TrueBlue eating stuff served on lettuce. (yes, he’s going to be a bit of a problem when it comes to getting the girls to eat rabbit food… at least he eats broccoli)

It takes years of macaroni/spaghetti/pasta differentiation – and then, here come the cannellonis – love flat noodles 1/4″ or less because they are like homemade of yore for spaghetti or soup.

Hot and cold dishes – hot seems more filling and broccoli more nutritious –
stay with tried and true.

We are in a heat wave/drought – by the way it rained two inches finally today – but the rain was after your post and I was thinking cold food.

The two little neighbor girls that used to spend time at my table on and off would have loved your soup – anything or nothing with cheese please. Hold the rice and that green stuff. They were fast food/ take out/ eat in their carseat specialists. Cracker, cheese, apple slice snack was cheese – with cracker and apple decorations. But I witnessed both chewing on falling leaves in autumn off the ground.

[While I’m at it the cup of rice is the amount before you cook it – just in case …
and I cut the lettuce up so it’s easier to eat and have cheese on the side –
or do the same with elbow macaroni]

On Wednesday my family and I made our annual trip to Springfield to see the Lincoln sites and pray at Lincoln’s tomb for the repose of the souls of Lincoln and his family. A few observations:

1. Heat: The phrase hotter than blazes is trite but it was very descriptive for the triple digit day. Walking outside was a trying experience with the heat and humidity. Illinois is usually green and lush this time of year, the towns and cities of Central Illinois being isolated islands in an endless green sea of corn and soybeans. Due to the drought, much of Illinois looks yellow and dead, with most crops under severe stress. Not good.

2. Time is a River: One of the reasons why I enjoy annual rituals like the drive to Springfield to see the Lincoln sites, is that they are a good way to mark the passage of time. My wife and I began our trips when we were mid-twenties newly weds. This year our sons will be 21 in September, and our son Donald will be starting his junior year at the University of Illinois. Our “baby-girl” will be a senior in high school this year, and we are in the midst of the college search with her. Fortunately, my bride and I are not getting any older, or such reflections might take a turn to the melancholic! 🙂

3. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation:This year is the 150th year of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. As in past years what moved me most at the Lincoln Museum was an exhibit showing Lincoln standing at his desk staring at a draft of the Proclamation, as shadows behind him representing historical figures give him contradictory advice: predicting doom or salvation for the Union if the Emancipation Proclamation is issued. I have never seen anything which so neatly encapsulates the loneliness of someone making a huge decision for his nation.

My wife and I began our trips when we were mid-twenties newly weds. This year our sons will be 21 in September, and our son Donald will be starting his junior year at the University of Illinois.

Oh, gads, and I thought realizing our Fluffy was about five years old was bad! (husband and I got him shortly after he got back from Japan, but before we were married– first time we went to visit my folks post-proposal, and the little fuzzball bit TrueBlue to bleeding) He needed a rabies shot, and the nice doctor asked how old he is… his brother died after the second rabies vaccination (rare side effect) and this was the first one after that….. (found this, trying to find the place where I mentioned Slick/Baal dying. Fluffy is now closer to twenty pounds than two, and BOTH of my hands can’t circle his chest, rather than TrueBlue/Elf’s being able to fully circle them.)

The statue of Abraham Lincoln in Parliament Square, London, is a copy of the Saint-Gaudens statue in Chicago. It was intended to commemorate the centenary of the Treaty of Ghent, but the war intervened and it was not unveiled until 1920. Another bronze of Lincoln (Barnard) was considered for London and finally accepted by Manchester; it now stands in the recently-named Lincoln Square. Lincoln paid tribute to the cotton workers of Lancashire for supporting the anti-slavery cause despite the cotton famine caused by the Civil War. It was one of the factors which led to the granting of the vote to working-class men in 1867, so indirectly Abe helped democracy in England.

As a small boy I learned the Gettysburg address by heart. It is amazing how literate 19th century politicians were compared with their modern counterparts. It shows the benefits of a classical education.

We go thru Springfield several time a year traversing to MO. We always manage Panera’s but haven’t stopped to do “Lincoln” viewing in many a year. If we are granted possession of the grandboys from CA next summer for a few weeks, perhaps we will be able to show them this era of history. Their 4 times removed cousin is Dr. Samuel Mudd. Lincoln stories always make my heart beat stronger.

not original with me- the Latin “tempus fugit” actually says “flees” and – reminds us of the English word “fugitive”.
I was touched by this post just for that reason– nd the realization that this country is not so old after all… plus whenever I hear Battle Hymn of the Republic, I tear up.

We’re roughly 4,231 months into the 2012 presidential campaign, or so it seems. Even if you live in a very secure red or blue state (like me), you’ve probably already been subjected to an endless barrage of television ads if you live within about 300 miles of a swing state. And if you live in Richmond, the capital of the battleground state of Virginia, some 4,504 ads have already run (this one’s not an exaggeration), and exactly zero of them have been positive. That’s right, 4,504 out of the 4,504 ads run thus far in the market have been attack ads.

Such information usually inspires people to bellyache about negative campaigning. For instance, this past weekend I talked to my relatively apolitical brother, who said that a politician would instantly become a mass favorite by just being the first guy to run a positive campaign detailing what he was going to do, and forgoing the attacks on his opponent. I just smiled, nodded, and kept smoking the cigar he had generously given me.

I find the criticism of negative campaigning to be overwrought for three reasons. First of all, as Jim Geraghty mentions, they are simply more effective than positive ads. As he says, “if positive ads worked, campaigns would use them more frequently.” People like to complain about them, but attack ads do have an impact. I don’t know if we can accurately measure how persuasive they are, but campaigns would stop running them if they had any indication that they were ineffective.

Second, are “positive” ads any more bearable? No thirty second television spot is going to convey a tremendous amount of information. While we might roll our eyes as soon as the ominous music rolls while some low-voiced narrator explains why Mitt Romney likes to torture small animals and wants your grandmother to die in the street, the fluffy “Hi, I’m Joe McGenericcandidate, and I like puppies” ads are somehow even worse. Nine times out of ten, positive ads are nothing more than the candidate or his surrogates spouting generic nonsense that conveys almost no substantive information. Moreover, in a culture where people increasingly watch television shows through their DVRs specifically so that they can skip the commercials, we generally find all ads to be annoying. So who cares whether the tone of the political advertisement is positive or negative – they’re all equally insufferable. At least the negative ads are more likely to be somewhat funny and entertaining.

Finally, any person who bases their vote even partly due to political advertising should be banned from the polling booth. The first thing that should happen when a registered voter appears at the judges table – after flashing photographic identification – is them being asked if they only decided their vote after watching a thirty second television advertisement. If they answer yes, or if they answer no but it’s clear that they’re lying – and we can get people there who can tell when people are lying to them – then they should be politely escorted out of the building. If after several decades of campaigning you still can’t decide who to vote for, and you finally just wave your arms and say “I guess I’ll vote for the guy who says the other guy wants to murder my children in their sleep,” then you really should have no right to vote. I wouldn’t feel much better about this voter if he instead said “I guess I’ll vote for the guy who promises abortions for some and miniature American flags for everyone else.” Political advertising is geared towards dumb people and the politically ignorant (not a mutually exclusive group, necessarily). I really don’t care if the message being conveyed to them is negative or positive. The fact that any political advertising actually sways the electorate is depressing in its own right.

I talked about this in a discussion about VP choices, and I’m going to repeat it here: we really need to take the high road more often. We’ve seen in recent years the way that smears degrade the societal bond. It is a politician’s duty to appeal to the best in people.

“Finally, any person who bases their vote even partly due to political advertising should be banned from the polling booth.”

I disagree. Some candidates are a bit coy about their views when they do not want life issues to predominate the race. All it takes is a Planned Parenthood-sponsored ad to “out” the pro-life candidate as “dangerous” to women and society as a whole and I know exactly who to vote for.

For a while, I refused to vote for candidates who were not explicitly and proudly pro-life (on the presumption that they would fold under the pressure of the mainstream media), but that seems not be a good indicator of the candidate’s performance in office. So, negative ads still serve a purpose for me anyway.

I agree that political ads go for the lowest common denominator, and that goes for the stupid and the ignorant who these ads are geared to. But we must not forget the part played
by the media in shaping public opinion.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

Robert Heinlein

Scott Brown is a largely pro-abort RINO, but he has come up with a campaign commercial in the above video which is devastating both to Obama and his opponent in the Massachusetts Senate race, Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren. Warren came up with the business bashing meme that Obama disastrously latched on to, and Brown is ramming it down their throats. By far the best campaign commercial I have seen this year.

11 Responses to Let America Be America Again

Watching Obama, it occurred to me that he is playing up to the envy, greed and other lower instincts of the people. Sowing discord, chaos and promoting vice is not human. It is un-American.
Here is one: “The duty of a PATRIOT is to PROTECT his country FROM its government.” Thomas Paine

I am reminded of last Sunday’s first reading, in which Jeremiah warns about the shepherd who allows the flock to wander away from each other. That man in the White House wants to break up the flock that is America, pitting one against another. Envy and jealousy are not an ethical basis for public policy.

It is precisely that, and ONLY that theme that will send the President packing.

Hammer the economy theme, hammer it, hammer it, hammer it.

Bring every discussion back to it.

If the President wants to talk about child birth, point out the plummetting birthrate due to the economy. If he wants to talk about immigration, point out the 23 percent unemployment among African Americans. If he wants to talk about cooperation in Washington, point out the failed bi-partisan stimulus bills.

No, it is not. I am reading him literally even though it is a rhetorical flourish, because it miseducates.

You had during pre-modern eras periods of advance and retreat in levels of prosperity. Robert Heinlein did not have a comprehensive understanding of why this occurred; serious students of economic history are uncertain about that. See Philip Daeleader on late antiquity and the early medieval period.

As for the modern period, catastrophic retreats in levels of prosperity are generally coincident with wartime. You also see it in economies whose measurable aggregate production is heavily dependent on net exports of minerals and their national income fluctuates a great deal according to the terms of trade.

You could say you saw it in Soviet Russia after the 1st World War and much of Eastern Europe after the 2d. You still have to try and disentangle the effects of the war from the effects of the abuse of manufacturers, financiers, merchants, artisans, and peasants.

It should be noted that proprietors are not a ‘tiny minority’. They are certainly atypical, but the number of people in business for themselves full time is at any one time in the seven digits in this country. Being a notable in industrial history, whether your name is Carnegie or Jobs, is rare. The thing is, the benefits attributable to innovation in a discrete economic sector are often surprisingly small. It is the collective effect of many tiny efforts which comes to matter.

We are not living in Roumania ca. 1946. The current regime’s regulatory practices and ham handed capital allocation will one supposes cause such injuries as the economy gradually comes to a point of stagnation. That modern industrial civilization will disappear is something we can be fairly sure will not occur. That 25 years worth of economic improvements will evaporate (as happened during the period running from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1933) is also unlikely (and most likely to arise from trouble in the financial sector). The real threat is can be seen in the history of Argentina – decade after decade of minimal net improvement punctuated by political and economic crises which never seem to resolve anything in a salutary direction.

Like most disasters that confront humanity Art, poverty, after a certain technological level is achieved, is usually man made. Recent examples I can think of off the top of my head would include the expulsion of the Indians from Uganda and the expropriation of their property in 1972 which was a disaster for the Ugandan economy. Zimbabwe, one of the more agriculturally fertile regions in Africa, is now subject to recurrent threats of famine due to the fecklessness of the government of Robert Mugabe. The lamentable history of Communism is an example of Heinlein’s statement in action, except where there is a turning away from the doctrines of Marx as has occurred in China. Cuba is a prime example of what happens when a country drives away its business class.

In our country there are complete fools, most if not all located in the Democrat party, who would love to give further proof to Heinlein’s observation. The Occupy movement has degenerated into bad farce, but the Democrats were initially quite happy with their 99%-1% jeremiads. California is a prime example of what economic quicksand an anti-business and anti-growth mentality can produce.

A pro-business mentality is a rare thing in global history, and governments have often adopted policies that have destroyed prosperity. In the Church, sadly, it is not rare to see troubling manifestations of this type of anti-free enterprise mentality:

The people who run the fast food chain Chick-fil-A are serious Christians. They close their 1,608 restaurants on Sundays even though they lose a huge amount of revenue doing so. The President of Chick-fil-A has spoken out against gay marriage. As a result Democrat politicians, who have as much understanding of freedom of speech as they do morality, have decided to punish a legal business.

First up was Thomas Menino, mayor of Boston, who sent an unintentionally hilarious letter to the president of the company. This Boston Herald editorial noted the humor:

I hardly need any further encouragement to consume Chik-fil-a, but this only makes me crave the original w/ a side of waffle fries even more. It would be interesting for CFA to take them to the courts on this. Even if they lost, it would then set a precedent for banning liberal supporting businesses like Starbucks.

I am kind of wondering what Richard J. Daley, who was a daily communicant, would make of using municipal regulations to harrass people opposed (incidental to their business) to disfiguring matrimonial law or promoting sodomy.

Remember when emblematic liberals were nice guys like George McGovern and Allard Loewenstein?

Pieter Viereck nailed it: the notable problem with the liberal is his grandson.

The insanity of all of this is really hard for me to grasp. How can someone speak out of both sides of thier mouths and continue to get a pass? Free Speech means eactly what? Agree with me or else! Venerable Sheen said that (paraphrase here) tolorance of people is absolutely paramount but tolorane of principles can not be accepted. I can look up the exact quote but the point is clear. It seems that the dynamic shift they want is a shift that they think is “progressive” but in reality it is regressive. Welcome back to the age of paganism that rules..

I live close to two Chik-fil-a stores. The food is excellent, the staff is very friendly and it is always clean. It is a really nice place to eat.

It is really quite frightening what is going on. The complete hypocrisy would be amusing if it wasn’t so scary. Watching all of this happen makes me feel like I am in a bad dream, saying to myself “this can’t be happening” and hoping I wake up.

Chik-fil cannot attain to the first-grade of the “Chicago way” for the ballerina, unless the duty managers went around stabbing patrons with wishbones while screaming “You’re dead!!”. True mastery of the “Chicago way” though will come only by emulating Emmanuel senior, one time scourge of the transportation and hotel industries in Palestine.

As a fellow Chicagoan (and a lover of food-things chicken) I have to laugh at Rahm.

It’s pretty great that whenever someone disagrees with their agenda (or grab at votes) they are called discriminatory, mean-spirited or whatever. I guess the only true tolerance for them is apathy or agreement with them. Very nice.

A truly hilarious video from 1943, Food For Fighters, detailing the dedication of the Army to quality rations for the troops. I imagine a room full of GI’s watching this video and laughing their heads off. Virtually every veteran of World War II I have encountered has complained about the quality of the rations. My late father-in-law was a Navy cook during the War. He developed a life long detestation of mutton when he was forced to prepare it for six months aboard ship because it was the only meat they were supplied. He did his imaginative best, and he was a very good cook, but the sailors were ready to mutiny by the time the ship received a different type of meat.

The Army has always suspected that the Navy gets better rations Paul. That is why it is a tradition in the Army to steal Navy rations. As I understand it, it is also a tradition in the Marine Corps to steal all supplies from the Army that are not nailed down! 🙂 Ah, midnight requisitions!

My grandmother was a nurse in the army in WWII stationed in England. For many months the only vegetable they had was brussel sprouts. Grandma was the type of woman who always ate her veggies (or at least would not admit to not eating them.) So she diligently scarfed down the endless supply. I believe it was many years after the war before she could face them again.
(On a side note, my three year old watched the Jerry Lewis clip and said with disgust, “He has pee pee and poo poo.” Everyone’s a critic.)

You’re right, Greg, we bubbleheads did eat better than skimmers did. I think that with the advent of nuclear propulsion, the Navy was able to have excellent food refrigeration aboard submarines, and due to the nature of the work – being submerged for months at a time – spared no expense when it came to feeding the crews on submarines.

Each Friday morning, the CO made us eat breakfast in the Army-run mess hall in Ramsein AB. It was the best meal I had all week. No, seriously! They cooked three-egg omelets with all the fixings while you watched. Of course, we did favors for the cooks and they did some for us.

Boy, you never wanted to aggravate the medics. They could lose your shot records.

The Civilian run eateries I’ve tried on various bases were good– Pensacola’s NATTC’s deserved its award winning status, the various Air Force places justify the price tag (only free if you’re on orders for the air force, although they Navy will “pay you back”…*giggles at the notion of someone believing that*) and the on-base Galley for Sasebo has food whose quality was only surpassed by the quality of the facilities. (And they had a real set of Samurai armor when you walked in.)

On the ships I was on, the food could either be really bad (it just a ittle more than edible most of the time) or pretty good. I do remember, shortly after I reported to my first ship (USS Dubuque LPD-8) in Japan, thy moved this Senior Chief HT (hull technician–affectionately referred to as tird chasers) to the mess decks. I don’t kow what kind of mojo he had going on, but the food was great the short time he was on the mess decks.

I also remember when we had this gung-ho skipper who would sometimes compensate us enlisted guys with high quality steaks when we had steel beach picnics (BBQs at sea). This was surely a welcome change from the fillet-o-shoe sole that normally got passed off to us as steak.

Well, Don, swabbie life for me was no picnic either. Try working 16+ hour days in a hot boiler room that often got up 130+ regularly. I did that for five years than did my two year vacation (aka shore duty) and then got out.

I do remember, shortly after I reported to my first ship (USS Dubuque LPD-8) in Japan, thy moved this Senior Chief HT (hull technician–affectionately referred to as tird chasers) to the mess decks. I don’t kow what kind of mojo he had going on, but the food was great the short time he was on the mess decks.

Going off of my interaction with the HTCS that made things tick, he made them follow the recipes. Even if it did mean they had to get different measuring devices. Man, was that guy great about understanding the idea of doing EXACTLY what the instructions said or he’d come down like the wrath of God! (For those who don’t know–very important when dealing with the sewage of several thousand people on a tiny tin box.)

“I guess that is why they call it service Greg! Parts of the Army I enjoyed, but I couldn’t imagine making a career of it, but I am glad there are good men and women who do, in all the armed services!”

That’s true. I had no desire of making a career of the Navy either, especially after fives aboard ship. I too enjoyed parts of the Navy (some a little too much). But all in all, I believe am a much better man because of that experience.

And their galley! Too bad they got rid of the Chief’s Galley Navy-wide after one guy embezzled. (I was the only female sent to mess duty that turn that was polite, so they sent me to serve in the Chief’s mess– which included being house keeping for the female chief’s berthing.)
I suspect they were just looking for an excuse.

Going back on topic…if I remember reading about some of the issues with food during WWI, although I’ve only read about fiction set in the UK (author likes to inject history and hobbies), slop-in-a-tray was a pretty big advancement. Being able to eat it without being medically sick, instead of disgusted, was a big deal.

*watches the video again, with play-by-play*
Highly amused at the “nutrition has become a science!”
And like the Beautiful Assistant.
And suddenly I see why my dad’s twin got jokes about his dad bringing that nose back from Italy… (the guy that talks with the bread is an archetype)
Lack of bones would explain a lot of the lack of flavor. The…um… lack of standard aging and side effects that the farm boys would’ve been use to probably didn’t help. (Well into the 60s, my mom was going out to the well house, shaving off hair and cutting dinner off of the hanging beef. Eew, but it tenderized things so much that they didn’t NEED ground beef.)
What was that guy doing with the humidity-over-time meter? You don’t need to twist that thing like that unless you’re putting in a new ink-stick. (probable answer: making it look cool. Did that regularly with a series of o-scopes and sig-gens.)
*laughs* Oh, that poor guy! Poor Colonel Isken! I feel bad about laughing at the flat acting, but I bet he was miserable doing that horrible script.
When I think about what a lot of folks would have been eating usually, “a can of meat for every meal” sounds REALLY good. (Just because my family were mostly ranch-born doesn’t mean I don’t realize they had it good food-wise– especially with the great depression right there.)

All meals are based on the four basic food groups.
SUGAR
SALT
CAFFINE
SATURATED FATS.
(They served abundant well prepared and good tasting food.)

It is a soldiers absolute and unalienable right to complain about the food. Most of the cooks I have known took pride in preparing good food and did as well as varying circumstances allowed, despite knowing they would seldom if ever get a thank you.

I would not generally blame the cooks for poor meals Hank. I think sometimes it was poor quality of supplies, unimaginative menus that sometimes the cooks had little control over and, sometimes, too high expectations for food that had to be prepared in mass quantities and not under the best conditions.

My brother-in-law’s father, and his brother were cooks in the army in WW2. They were brought up on a large outack farm in the central Hawkes Bay in the North Island, so were both able to scrape up a meal from almost anything, as they used to go hunting pigs and deer in the rugged and mountainous bush country and stay away for days living off the land. They were both crack shots – and when WW2 broke out, they enlisted thinking that they would be used as snipers or something similar.
But as is always the case with the army,you get put where you least expect and they were both appointed as cooks. They were shipped off to Guadalcanal, after brief orientation in New Caledonia, not long after the Americans launched their assault to re-take the Pacific Islands in 1942 – around Aug/Sept. only a matter of weeks after the allied landing at which is now known as Honiara (where my son worked a couple of years ago). I think the RNZ Air Force sent 6 Hudson bombers there first to take over recon and patrols to allow the US aircraft to concentrate on the offensive actions. I’m not quite sure exactly when Wally and his brother got there, but the Japanese were still within sniping distance of the allied base – so he said it used to get pretty scary.
He loved being close to the Americans because their tucker was generally different or better than ours, so they used to trade – or steal. 🙂
This led some of the Americans to claim, that if they stationed the NZ troops on the Japanese occupied islands, the war would be over in a week, because the Japanese would have nothing left to eat or fight with. 😆